87. Intelligent robotisation and social wealth distribution

16 November 2016

We are increasingly faced with intelligent robots’ replacement of human labour in emergence.

Someone says that the success of Trump in the presidential election is related to the intelligent robots since intelligent robots take away the working positions of American whites and make them feel the intensity of survival crisis. As a consequence, if they want to protect their interests and have the sense of security, they have to drive away the coloured races and Mexican drug dealers.

Such crisis is not exclusive to America but to all the world, in fact. Intelligent robots have seized more and more working positions and more and more workers will be laid off, lose their jobs, get relief fund, could not afford the bills, and confront broken family relationship.

It is a real fact. More and more workers feel the pressures and panic.

One of my friends suddenly indulged in excessive drinking and raised a hue and cry at night. It was because their clothing factory is going to introduce the clothes-making robots and they will be soon laid off. However, if they are laid off, how could they support their parents and children and afford the family expenses?

Capitalist countries do not have any state-owned capital like China. However, they could still maintain the normal operation of the government. In addition to general tax revenues, I think that inheritance tax also plays a major role.

Inheritance tax requires the rich people to return their partial savings back to the country after death, or say, in conditions when they do not require the money anymore. It is fair and justifiable. The reason is that the wealth created by the rich people in a whole lifetime is inseparable from the social environment. The law protects the wealth of people when they are alive, for the purpose of maintaining social order and rules, while the law requires the rich people to return partial wealth to the society when they are dead, for the purpose of maintaining social justice.

China does not have any inheritance tax. Many rich people utilise the social rules to create considerable wealth when they are alive, but they still hold such wealth even when they are dead. It is extremely unfair.

China does not levy the inheritance tax. It is not because that the Chinese government is so kind. The real reason is that the Chinese government does not lack money.

The disposal of corrupt officials in China could indicate how much wealth owned by rich merchants in China is obtained from power-for-money deal. They make full of the rule of game to earn considerable wealth while alive and even entrust such wealth to their children so as to glorify the ancestors.

Even if the wealth of many merchants is earned legally and justifiably, the wealth is still created with the support of the whole social environment. The country should protect personal assets when people are alive and encourage people to create more wealth and advocate rich people to return partial wealth back to the society when they are dead. People should give mutual benefits and help each other.

In consideration of the depreciation of currency and the accumulation of social wealth, the inheritance tax should decrease together with the increase of average salary in the society. For instance, the government could levy different tax rates when the inheritance exceeds average salary in the society by ten thousand times, by one hundred thousand times, one million times, and ten million times.

In my opinion, the first rich generation and second rich generation are excessively arrogant. They might even not know how many bowls of rice they could eat in each meal. Therefore, the government should levy inheritance tax on them until they become sensible.

Robotisation leads to the unemployment of workers and forces the wealth to quickly gather in the hands of the minority.

If we could take back partial money earned by robots and ask workers to do other work, this problem will be well fixed.

Industrial robot is on behalf of advanced productivity. The historical trend should not be reversed nor blocked.

However, it is feasible to take back partial money earned by robots for companies through certain means and retain workers to do other meaningful jobs.

Inheritance tax is a good solution.

In addition, because of the expansion of the gap between the rich and the poor, inheritance tax and tax rate should be increased too. The maximum value should be 90 per cent or more.

In line with the change of the gap between the rich and the poor, and the change of social relationship, the government should change the laws and inheritance tax and tax rate.

As for the robotisation, the government should implement the public ownership of land and mineral resources, build reasonable state-owned companies, and set up reasonable inheritance tax. Excessive wealth should be controlled by the government and put into national investment.

I think that it is also necessary to reform the wasteland, barren mountain, and deserts. Commercial crops and green and high-quality subsidiary agricultural products should gradually replace those low-quality, not environmentally friendly, and unhealthy subsidiary agricultural products.

Workers could transfer jobs and leave the plants for robots. Human beings have to conquer the nature and transform the earth. At the same time, everyone has due responsibility in this major task.

Unreasonable allocation of social resources will become a growing severe social problem.